Is this (U.S.) constitutional?

[TestudoAubreii]

Greetings,

Hello everyone. I ran across this video and as I was watching it, I was questioning whether or not this is constitutional. I can understand the officer's point of view as far as safety, but is it constitutional for this to happen? Anyhow, I hope this wasn't posted all ready, I mean it has be a while since it was posted on YouTube.

morrisonicus

[Stavroforos]

I'm sorry I couldn't stand watching the whole video, but up to 3:22, it's Constitutional. The guy is just too much of a douchebag for me to continue watching.

And I've met my fair share of douchebags.

[MadBurgerMaker]

I'm sorry I couldn't stand watching the whole video, but up to 3:22, it's Constitutional. The guy is just too much of a douchebag for me to continue watching.

And I've met my fair share of douchebags.

Yeah, the douchebaggery just explodes out of the speakers with this one. It's almost painful.

[TestudoAubreii]

Which one is the douchebag?

[Stavroforos]

Which one is the douchebag?

The person in the car.

[Kamos]

Yes it's constitutional, whats with people making such a big deal out of immigration checkpoints?

[TestudoAubreii]

This is from the person who posted the video:

"This was not at the border, it was a suspension less stop."

So, if it wasn't at the border, does it give the officer a right to take the guy out of his car. Just because the officer felt that the camera operator may be smuggling or whatever, doesn't give him the right to demand things like I.D. and to search the vehicle, especially when the people didn't do anything wrong.

morrisonicus

[Stavroforos]

This is from the person who posted the video:

"This was not at the border, it was a suspension less stop."

So, if it wasn't at the border, does it give the officer a right to take the guy out of his car. Just because the officer felt that the camera operator may be smuggling or whatever, doesn't give him the right to demand things like I.D. and to search the vehicle, especially when the people didn't do anything wrong.

morrisonicus

The person didn't follow the instructions to pull over to the correct place. Even if this was a mistake, the police (customs? whatever) had to treat him just as they would anyone else who failed to follow instructions. Your IDs are basically all issued by the government, so the government can ask you for them at any time.

[Farnan]

If the cop was a Nazi SS Gestapo (someone needs to learn WWII history) then he would have thrown the kid in a concentration camp, destroyed the camera and told his family he died in a car accident.

[Justice and Mercy]

It's constitutional.

I hate whoever's holding the camera.

[TestudoAubreii]

I agree that the title of the video is horrible and that is why it did not end up in the title of this thread. I also agree that the driver seems like someone who is just looking to push the outside of the envelope and is quite hard to watch.
I know that in the video it said it was a miss understanding, but do you think that if they were up to something illegal or border-hoping, that they would stop when pulled over, especially if they blatantly ran through a check point, or whatever it was? Just because the officer felt that they were doing something illegal doesn't give him the constitutional right to start requesting I.D.'s and requesting to search the vehicle. The people in the car did nothing wrong, so I feel that they had the right to do what they did; that is what the constitution is for.

Why does the government have the right to ask for your I.D., Stavroforos? Just because the issue I.D.'s doesn't mean they can randomly demand that you show it, especially if you are doing nothing wrong.

morrisonicus

[Barry Goldwater]

This is perfectly constitutional, the guy in the car was being an epic douchebag. If I were that officer I'd lose my temper in the first three minutes and kick his ass.

Why does the government have the right to ask for your I.D., Stavroforos? Just because the issue I.D.'s doesn't mean they can randomly demand that you show it, especially if you are doing nothing wrong.

morrisonicus

If an officer asks for your ID, you hand it to him. End of story. It doesn't hurt anybody, it doesn't take a lot of effort and it won't eat up a lot of time. You certainly don't spend half an age being a jackass while your buddy holds the camera.

[Hannibal the destroy]

I agree with Mr borat the guy in the car was being a huge douche

[Gertrudius]

Uhm, there was nothing untoward happening in this instance other than the actions of the ignorant bastard in the car. Policy clearly dictates that police have the right to request to see ID after pulling someone over for an offense. Please demonstrate how the constitution has anything to do with this. It quite clearly has to do with police policy which is based on Federal, State and County laws. I'll admit it's been awhile since I read the constitution, but I'm 98.3% sure that it never mentions the right to withhold identification from an officer of the law who is operating within the bounds of his mandate. Provide evidence, or this will be clearly seen as stretching an inadequate observation into a complete fallacy.

Take it easy,

[Stavroforos]

Why does the government have the right to ask for your I.D., Stavroforos? Just because the issue I.D.'s doesn't mean they can randomly demand that you show it, especially if you are doing nothing wrong.

morrisonicus

But in the case of the drivers, they had reason to believe that they might be doing something wrong. Not to mention that at any sort of immigration / customs checkpoint, you need to have ID with you.

[Sphere]

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of the state of Nevada

If you've been stopped on reasonable suspicion of wrong doing you have to give your name to a police officer if requested, but you don't have to provide ID. The police can also do a quick a quick search of your person (frisking) or vehicle for anything illegal (guns, drugs, open alcohol). They cannot to the best of my knowlege search for things like ID.

You do not have to say anything beyond your name, nor do you have to provide ID. This doesn't really apply if you've broken a traffic law and are pulled over, as by that point we are well past the, "reasonable suspicion of wrong doing" stage. It would apply if you are pulled over, but haven't done anything illegal.

If during a "Terry Stop" as it's callled, the police find some actual evidence of illegal activity then it goes to another level, and a greater depth of searching can be done.

[Farnan]

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of the state of Nevada

You have to give your name to a police officer if requested, but you don't have to provide ID.

That is only if there is no suspicision of crime. If you run a checkpoint you are violating the law and can be forced to show ID.

[Erik]

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of the state of Nevada

You have to give your name to a police officer if requested, but you don't have to provide ID.

If you make a traffic violation, doesn't the police at least have the right to check your drivers' license?

If not: what's stopping people from just driving without a license?

[Mikelus Trento]

If you make a traffic violation, doesn't the police at least have the right to check your drivers' license?

If not: what's stopping people from just driving without a license?

You actually drive with yours?

[Erik]

You actually drive with yours?

Of course.

Here you're not allowed to drive if you don't have your license with you.